This morning, the Supreme Court took a monumental step towards reining in the administrative state. In the landmark case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Court overturned the notorious Chevron Doctrine by a decisive 6-2 vote, with one Justice recused. This ruling is a triumph for those who believe in returning power from federal bureaucrats back to Congress, and by extension, the people.
The Chevron Doctrine: A Brief History
Nearly forty years ago, the Supreme Court made a grave error in deciding Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. That case established that courts should defer to federal agencies' interpretation of ambiguous statutes that the agencies administer. Essentially, it meant that if a law wasn’t crystal clear, the bureaucrats at federal agencies were given the benefit of the doubt when exercising governmental power. This deference made it nearly impossible for citizens to challenge the decisions and policies of regulators, who often exercised their power without significant checks.
Over the past four decades, the Chevron Doctrine has led to a series of regulatory overreaches and absurd outcomes. For instance, the term "navigable waters" was ludicrously defined to include ponds, creeks, and wetlands... even dry patches of desert sand in the high deserts of Nevada, far beyond any reasonable interpretation! Regulators imposed new taxes without any statutory authority from Congress, and law-abiding gun owners faced harassment through burdensome regulations with no legal basis. These examples are just a tiny fraction of the abuses. Moreover, many of these overreaching regulations carried severe penalties, including prison time for technical violations, turning regulatory infractions into criminal offenses.
The Loper Decision: A Return to Judicial Responsibility
The Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo is a significant victory for judicial responsibility and the separation of powers. The Court's ruling emphasizes that statutory interpretation is the responsibility of the courts, not federal agencies. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that “courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.” This decision restores the pre-Chevron baseline where courts, not agencies, are the final arbiters of statutory meaning.
The decision is grounded in the history and text of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and deploys the doctrine of stare decisis powerfully. The opinion clarifies that statutory interpretation is a judicial function, and while agencies may have expertise in technical matters, they do not have comparative expertise in interpreting statutory text. This crucial distinction reaffirms the role of the judiciary in maintaining the balance of power.
Justice Kagan's Dissent: A Predictable Outcry
In her dissenting opinion, Justice Kagan lamented that the Loper decision "is likely to produce large-scale disruption. All that backs today's decision is the majority's belief that Chevron was wrong—that it gave agencies too much power.” This outcry is predictable from those who have long supported an expansive administrative state. However, the majority's decision is a powerful statement that the unchecked power of federal agencies must be curtailed to preserve the constitutional order.
The Impact and Future Implications
The implications of this decision are profound. By rejecting Chevron deference, the Court has reined in the power of unelected bureaucrats, ensuring that they cannot create binding regulations without clear statutory authority. This decision will likely lead to significant changes in how agencies operate, requiring them to spend more time on statutory interpretation and ensuring that their actions align with the best meaning of the statutes, not merely plausible or permissible ones.
The ruling also underscores the importance of judicial review in safeguarding individual liberties and preventing regulatory overreach. With courts now reclaiming their role in statutory interpretation, we can expect a more balanced approach to regulation, one that respects the limits of agency authority and upholds the rule of law.
Potential Challenges and Economic Impact
Trillions of dollars are potentially at stake in the wake of the Court’s ruling. The Biden administration's top Supreme Court lawyer had warned that overturning Chevron would be an “unwarranted shock to the legal system.” While this decision may indeed lead to legal challenges and adjustments in how agencies function, it is a necessary correction to decades of unchecked regulatory power--regulatory power that already costs the American economy over $3.5 trillion annually, and if left unchecked, could reach $7.5 trillion by 2030!
The decision does not call into question prior cases that relied on Chevron. Chief Justice Roberts made it clear that such cases are entitled to statutory stare decisis. This means that while the Chevron framework is dismantled, the specific interpretations that were made under it remain valid unless directly challenged.
A New Era of Accountability
The Loper decision marks the beginning of a new era of accountability in the federal regulatory process. It reinforces the principle that agencies must operate within the bounds of their statutory authority and that any ambiguities in the law must be resolved by the courts, not the agencies themselves. This shift will likely lead to more transparent and accountable governance, where regulations are crafted and enforced with greater respect for the rule of law and individual rights.
For too long, the administrative state has operated with a level of autonomy that undermined democratic principles and individual liberties. The Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo is a critical step towards restoring the balance of power and ensuring that federal agencies do not exceed their constitutional and statutory limits. This is a victory for all Americans who value liberty, accountability, and the rule of law.
Today's Supreme Court decision is a resounding affirmation of the need to rein in the administrative state. By overturning the Chevron Doctrine, the Court has taken a bold step to return power to the people and restore the proper role of the judiciary in our constitutional system. This is a momentous occasion that should be celebrated by all who cherish freedom and the principles of limited government.
